All chapters of this book have been moved: here.
Saturday, March 27, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
“False friends like this
are worse than open enemies.”
In a recent TOQ Online article Hervé Ryssen wrote:
Yitzhak Attia, director of French-language seminars at the Yad Vashem Holocaust institute in Tel Aviv wrote this himself in the same issue of Israel magazine:
Even if reason tells us, even shouts with all its force the very absurdity of this confrontation between the small and insignificant people of Israel [i.e., all Jewry worldwide, not just “the State of Israel”] and the rest of humanity… as absurd, as incoherent and as monstrous as it may seem, we are engaged in close combat between Israel and the Nations—and it can only be genocidal and total because it is about our and their identities.You read it right: Between the Jewish people and the rest of humanity the struggle can only be “genocidal and total.” The “peace” which Israel intends to confer is no more and no less than “genocide,” the warrant for the execution of all humanity—except for those allowed to live as cultureless slaves.
The article fascinated me and I can only pray that the books on the Jewish Question (JQ) that I recently ordered from Amazon reach me soon, one authored by a Jew, the other by a non-Jew (it’s always a pain to order books from Mexico: postage services are turtle-slow). Meanwhile I’d like to quote some excerpts from the recent dispute in this blog. Unlike the long entry “Tanstaafl on Auster” this time I will also add a substantial amount of quotations from other commenters who replied to Takuan Seiyo in other blogs.
Tanstaafl is a regular contributor to TOQ Online; Takuan Seiyo, a regular contributor to the Brussels Journal, is Euro-American (though he married a Japanese woman he is half Slav, half Jewish and holds an American passport).
In the commentariat section of “A lightning in middle of the night” I published an e-mail essay that Takuan Seiyo had asked me to publish. Tanstaafl said about it (no ellipsis added between unquoted excerpts):
2. The conflict of interests and animosity between Europeans and jews is only a subset of European history. Your account is one-sided, faulting Whites and portraying jews purely as victims. Historically jews have occasionally allied with non-Europeans, notably the muslim moors and turks, against Europeans.
3. Jews were emancipated first and proceeded to help twist classical liberal egalitarianism into anti-male, anti-White, anti-Christian, jew-, black-, single-mother-, and immigrant-friendly neo-liberalism. Note the differences between how Whites and jews are treated right now by Western governments, academia, and media.
White nationalism is pathologized, as is criticism of jewish nationalism. Why the double standard?
4. Please be more specific about these “anti-semitic” liars and lies that concern you. Do these “anti-semites” wield any financial or political power? Did they open our borders? Have they put non-Whites on a pedestal above Whites? Are they passing hate speech laws?
4a. Source? Your point seems to be that it’s wrong for Whites to criticize or wish to separate from jews, even though living side by side for so long hasn’t stopped jews from criticizing or wishing to separate from Whites.
4b. Jewish contributions do not cancel out the “since the mid-19th century, it’s mostly bad things” you conceded in 1. Why should Whites be moved by this kind of argument anyway? Would a long list of German national socialist contributions move jews? The very attempt is considered “anti-semitic”. What justifies this asymmetry? When jewish nationalists founded israel was it because they didn’t appreciate the contributions of all those non-jews they had lived amongst for so long?
Immigration is like cheese. Muslims are like cheese. “Liberalism” is like cheese. Your comment is like cheese. There is no need to circumscribe who can be criticized or how, unless you fear the criticism cannot be answered.
Takuan Seiyo said...
I no more care for pathological Jew haters than I do for whitey-haters, feminazis etc. So you will forgive me for answering your post with a lesser time investment than it would merit had I more respect for the state of your mind and the quality of its store of knowledge.
To begin with, my account was one sided only to complement the one-sided account of the antisemites. I do not negate an “over-represented” Jewish complicity with the Moors or the Bolsheviks, nor the damage that resulted to the peoples among whom them lived. I only wish to point out that in both cases it was a result of terrific persecution suffered by the Jews at the hands of the regimes they helped to abolish.
You will find my elaboration on this point relative to Easter European history in my article commenting on Kevin MacDonald, the link to which is in one of the comments above. As to the treatment of the Jews by Spain’s Christian population prior to the Moor conquest, it was a very bad treatment indeed. You can find more in Wilfredo Tomas Cornellas y Suarez, The Longest War, 1995. So if you want to say that you don’t like Jews, you consider them your enemies etc., that’s fine with me. But when you adduce various historical data cherry picked to impute nefarious designs etc., and you design to omit all that belongs on the other scale, that is lying of the worst kind. I don’t like it and I don’t like people who do it.
As to all that being a subset of European history, it’s a redundant observation. I did not assert otherwise. This thread is about Jews in the West. As such, it is about that specific subset.
As to your third point, I don’t find much to object to. I don’t like the double standard and what spawned it, multicultural socialism. Likewise, I don’t care if you & Co. want to criticize and separate from Jews, as long as you don’t lie about Jews and demonize them, or lie about the Nazis and whitewash them. As to the lying about Jews, see pars. 2-4 above.
When I state that for the past 150 years Jewish (social) contributions have been mostly a bad thing, that’s a value judgment based in my traditionalist European position. Most of the gentile population of Europe and about 1/3 of that in the U.S. would disagree with this judgment. Indeed the enthusiastic gentile socialists in the arch spanning from Greece to Spain to Rhode Island, to the extent they know who has most contributed to the development of their creed, would say that the very same Jewish contribution is a good thing. For someone who is a white antisocialist ethnocentric there is plenty to criticize about Jews, and I have done so myself, e.g. In “F Street” at GoV [Gates of Vienna]. But between criticism and a monomaniacal obsession feeding on filtered history and redacted reality, there is a wide gap.
Everything may be criticized, provided you have knowledge and understanding of that which you criticize, and no pathological biases about the subject matter. If you are lactose-intolerant, please recuse yourself from writing about cheese. It’s the same whether your endeavor is to produce a cogent critique of Jews, automobiles or born-again Evangelists.
Takuan Seiyo, First you write:
…my account was one sided only to complement the one-sided account of the antisemites.Then you write:
But when you adduce various historical data cherry picked to impute nefarious designs etc., and you design to omit all that belongs on the other scale, that is lying of the worst kind. I don’t like it and I don’t like people who do it.Your moralizing would be more effective if you could adhere to your own standards.
I’ve read your long article demonizing MacDonald and “the anti-semites”. It makes me wonder. Given the paucity of criticism of jews in academia, media, and government, what do you find so disturbing about the modest attempts to, as you say, complement that? For a fellow so morally outraged by imbalance you show a curiously strong motivation to join anti-White/pro-jew academia, media, and government in condemning and squelching what they already condemn and squelch quite effectively.
Takuan Seiyo said...
It’s not possible to adhere to my own standards within a quick Internet post. In the context that Chechar created by putting together and emphasizing negative statements and attributions about Jews, I was merely redressing the balance.
It is possible, however, to achieve that standard of objectivity in a scholarly work of a lifetime, such as MacDonald’s. But he has cherry-picked to come out with conclusions that would be consistent with his pre-existing bias. That, to me, is not criticism of the Jewish ethny and its impact on the West, but antisemitic propaganda. Not that the other side doesn’t use it too. To me, Howard Zinn is the Jewish equivalent of MacDonald. In my opinion, of the two, Zinn was far more damaging to me, my people and my country—but that doesn’t change my opinion about antisemitic “scholarship.”
Curiously, the best, most informed and unbiased critique of Jews—including the black and the white—is now being done in some of the countries that Jewish leftism damaged the most. American antisemites cite those damages while being ignorant, because of linguistic limitations, even of their extent. And they totally omit both the countervailing side and the reactive and/or ideology-based reasons for those damaging activities, cooking up instead ludicrous Elders-of-Zion theories instead.
Should you want to acquire more knowledge so that you could at least critique credibly, I recommend the just-issued Rzeczywistość sowiecka 1939-1941 w świadectwach polskich Żydów by prof. Krzysztof Jasiewicz, all based on primary sources. It deals with the relations between Polish Jews and the Russian occupiers of what is now Ukraine, and it does so truthfully including telling about Jews’ collaboration with these occupiers and the reasons thereof. There are dozens of good books like that, in addition to hundreds of worthless antisemitic crap, in Polish alone.
As to the American academia, I find it anti-white but not necessarily pro-Jew, unless you be a Holocaust denier and the revealing of Hitler’s and the Nazi-machine’s madness and monumental criminality offends you. If they do not criticize the damage that Jewish leftism and universalism does to white society, it’s because they share those premises from A to Z.
Finally, let me remind you that the first and biggest supporter of Saul Alinsky was the Catholic Diocese of Chicago. I am not against a cogent, objective criticism of Jews and their contributions to society, including in the negative sense. But if you do so in the manner of our “white-power” activists, Holocaust deniers and MacDonald-type intellectuals, you are merely ensuring defeat for your own professed cause and victory for the Jewish influenced and harmful world view.
As Fjordman has written—and he is a pure Norwegian BTW—the worst thing that has happened to white people, ever, was Hitler. Start from that and backtrack. Than you will be able to issue a critique of Jews that normal, educated people will want to listen to.
Takuan Seiyo, Chechar’s essay cites the overrepresentation of jews in movements that weaken the ethnic majority, i.e. Whites, and you have done your best to lay the blame for this on “the anti-semites”.
My purpose here is to help other Whites see that there is a conflict between White and jewish interests, and that we can and should put our own interests first. I’m motivated, as I think MacDonald is, to attack what I perceive is bad for Whites.
You come with the interests of jews foremost in mind, though you don’t say so explicitly. You are unwilling to acknowledge that Whites have interests, apart from jews, and disapprove of us having any bias in favor of our own. You do not apply the same standards to jews. Your arguments here amount to a cherry-picked, biased account of their suffering at the hands of Whites, and your moralizing is based on the premise that anyone who doesn’t put jewish interests before their own is a bad person (“pathological”, “uninformed”, “biased”, “liar”). Can you admit your partisanship, or are you going to continue to pretend your concern is for balance and against bias?
Takuan Seiyo said...
Further discussion between us would be a waste of time, as it was from the beginning. I engaged in it only for the benefit of the other readers. But to answer your question, the interest that’s foremost in my mind is the interest of truth. I also believe that in the current plagues afflicting the West, the truth is on the side of the white autochthons. Since you and your kind profess to be on the side of the white autochthons, but at the same time you subvert and falsify the truth, you cannot but harm your own cause, lead to murder and chaos, and ultimately lose, ignominiously. Just as your über-idol did.
You and I shall remain in opposing and mutually disdaining camps of white ethnonationalists. The rest who care about the Fall of the West will have to choose sides. Goodbye.
Goodbye Seiyo. Since you are unwilling to plainly state that the interests of “the ethnic majority”/ “white autochthons”/ “white ethnonationalists” conflict with the interests of jews, and that you favor the latter, I can understand why you have nothing else to say.
Like Auster you really do a fantastic job of criticizing jews, then rationalizing their behavior and forgiving them, and ultimately directing blame at “the anti-semites”.
Here, just before saying goodbye, you imply that if Whites put our own interests first, it will require us to “subvert and falsify the truth”, and cannot but lead to “murder and chaos”. Is this because you think we’re incapable of running our own countries, without jews, or that we would suffer that notorious jewish tendency to inflict punishment on any country that tries? I’m eager for you to expand on this point. You can put it in your next essay focused on “the anti-semites”.
Takuan Seiyo said:
10% -20% of the indigenous white ethnic majority in every Western country has Jewish genes.This statement is clearly untrue.
“...that is the second reason why Jews tend to fall for universalist schemes (international socialism, multiculturalism etc.) rather than identify with the interests of the ethnic majority....”The main reason that Jews, as a group, never seem to identify with the interests of the ethnic majority in whichever nation we happen to be talking about is because they are not (biologically speaking) members of that ethnic majority.
This is not rocket science we’re talking here. It’s simple biology. And it’s nothing unique to Jewish people.
In Northern Ireland, for instance, the two (broadly speaking) opposing groups—Protestants and Catholics—haven’t gotten on for 400 years and neither side will ever identify with the interests of the other side because they are of differing ethnic backgrounds.
Same with Jews or any immigrant group moving into any society (unless it’s Swedes immigrating to Minnesota or something like that)—there will inevitably be conflicting, biological interests.
Chechar, If I’m wrong Seiyo can provide a direct answer himself. I thought his answer was apparent in his first comment, but even after being challenged on it he reiterated the point more explicitly:
I think it’s okay to blame the Frankfurt School, among others, but the overall point I am making is that you cannot treat the Frankfurt School in a vacuum. It’s a movement that arose as a counterpoint to Nazi ideology, and it reached its apotheosis after WW2 and in response to the Holocaust. No Nazis, no Frankfurt School. That’s what the Jew-haters refuse to consider. […]Even where he acknowledges jewish malfeasance he ultimately attributes it to a reaction to “jew-hate”. He begrudges the failure to do this, by talking only about the malfeasance, as more “jew-hate”. Where does the “jew-hate” come from? But of course only a “jew-hater” would even think to ask!
The Jews had suffered such horrible persecutions in Spain under the Visigoths, and in the Ukraine under Ukrainian fascists and Polish religious fanatics, that in either case they were acting in the interest of simple survival. […]
I therefore don’t begrudge the crypto-nazis their collating and disseminating tales of Jewish treachery or malfeasance, as long as true. What I begrudge them is falsifying the genesis of such actions as well as omitting tales of Jewish sacrifice and beneficence, thereby working toward the repeat of the same white society’s errors in the future, with the same ultimate failure for the Western peoples.
This tautological nonsense isn’t new. Auster used it in the argument about his First Law. It’s a variation on the more common argument which denies there is any jewish malfeasance whatsoever.
Takuan Seiyo said...
I thought you and I would not be talking any more, but when you quote me, we have to stand behind our offerings. “Organized Jewry” properly means Jews who are members of Jewish organizations that have a political agenda. But that is a clear minority of Jewish organizations, and of Jews. Therefore “Organized Jewry” as a term indicating Jews, as your ideological pals employ it, is clearly misleading.
The major Jewish political organizations or quasi-Jewish orgs I cannot stand, and their supporters I cannot stand. I have written more about it here. You will see there a link to a Jewish Orthodox website that specifically criticizes the same thing you (and I and others) criticize, and stating that orgs like HIAS are not representative of America’s Jews.
At any rate, whether supporting liberal Jewish organizations or not, American Jews are far more liberal than most—but not all—segments of the American White population. For instance, if you care to learn about Scandinavian-skewed states like Washington, Oregon, Minnesota etc., or mainstream Protestant denominations, or urban Catholic dioceses, you will find out that they are just as liberal, with the same destructive effect, in similar proportions, as America’s Jews.
If you could be rational about it, and stopped blaming Jews for all the ills of society, and just included the large liberal segment of America’s Jewry among the foes you wish to defeat, you would find me and people like me—and they are many, trust me—among your allies. But your monomaniacal obsession with Jews, Holocaust denial, peddling of old unilaterally presented libels and other such Jew-obsessive things simply put your kind beyond the pale. So we’ll have to go on without you, and you’ll have to go on without us.
I disagree with you. Basically, your main point is that, yes, Jews are/were overrepresented in many anti-national, anti-majority movements, but the reason for their hostility is the persecutions which they suffered.
1) The Jewish Bolsheviks represent the consequence of Czarist Russia’s anti-Semitism. Then the Jewish anti-national sentiments in the U.S. and Canada are a consequence of what? It seems that if you are good to the Jews or bad to them, the result is pretty much the same.
2) You say that the Poles hated equally Czarist Russia, for historical reasons. But the Poles didn’t support the Bolsheviks in retaliation, like the Jews. The Baltics and the Romanians also feared Czarist Russia for historical reasons, yet all of them refused to cooperate with the Bolsheviks. It takes more than a long history of persecutions to become a Bolshevik or to support such a regime. To be a Bolshevik, first of all you have to, well, enjoy the idea.
Takuan Seiyo said...
You are ignoring what I have already stated and directed specifically to you: I find and accept no excuse for the leftism of North American Jews. As to the historical context, you lack the basic foundations for me to engage in a discussion with you. You will find that in one of my early posts I reference some excellent recent scholarship being done in Poland about that whole period, truthfully and with no sacred cows. That is my approach here, but you’d need to invest a couple of years of your life in study before you’d be able to be a good judge of that.
Takuan Seiyo said:
“For instance, it’s true that Jacob Schiff, an American-Jewish banker, gave loans to the Japanese government that enabled Japan to defeat Russia in 1904. Schiff is honored as a hero in Japan. It’s also true that Jews made a vital contribution to the Russian revolution and climbed in disproportionate numbers to high posts in the Bolshevik movement. But what’s more important is WHY Schiff made that loan, and why Jews supported the Bolsheviks. He and they did so because all Jews hated Czarist Russia. They hated it because they were a grossly persecuted, maligned, abused and murdered group under the czars. It’s not in vain that the word pogrom is Russian. That’s why Schiff saw his contribution to the defeat of the czar’s army as a matter of honor, and why Jews saw the rise of the Bolsheviks as a literal life-saver.”But, TS, you only tell one side of the story here. Yes, Jews were hated and persecuted in Czarist Russia, but you fail to answer—or even, I think, to ask—why?
Commenters here can, and probably will, offer up a lot of answers to that question, mostly focusing on Jewish behavior I’m sure. Unfortunately, they will also be telling only one side of the story.
As I said previously, you will never understand any of the sometimes (too often) terrible relationship between European Jews and native Europeans unless you start looking at the situation from a biological point-of-view.
Jews in Russia were hated by Russians (and other ethnic groups in the Russian Empire) because they were not/are not Russian. Yes, it is really that simple! If you (all of us here, in fact) would take the time to learn about and contemplate behavioral biology and its genetic underpinnings, all of this will cease to be a mystery.
You mentioned in the comments of the other post going at the moment that some of your ancestors—your Slavic ancestors—defended Europe against Islamic invaders. I hope you realize that what they were doing was simply defending what they saw as their territory and their access to the resources there from an invading group of foreigners.
Why should they have bothered? Why not just share their territory with the Muslims? Invite them in—make peace? Because NO group of people anywhere wants to share their territory and resources with an unrelated group of people. This, as I’ve said before, is fundamental biology. Sharing of resources amongst humans works somewhat in good times, but it definitely doesn’t work when times are tough.
I cannot think of another mammal species that willingly shares its territory with competitors from its own species. (Perhaps there are exceptions, but I can’t think of one at the moment. I will keep thinking on it, though.) There is definitely no primate species that shares its territory with unrelated, competing groups. Quite the contrary, territories are viciously defended from encroachment by neighboring, unrelated groups—even though some of those groups usually include “cousins” and other somewhat related individuals.
Now, you know already that Ashkenazi Jews are a distinct ethnic group in Europe, even though they have some acquired some indigenous European genes. Ashkenzis have been a “reproductively isolated population in Europe, despite living in many countries, with little inflow or outflow from migration, conversion, or intermarriage with other groups, including other Jews.” Ashkenazis are much more closely related to other Jews and to Middle Easterners than they are to Europeans.
Of course the natives are going to dislike and distrust them! They are not even (or barely even) Europeans, genetically speaking. It’s difficult to get even more closely related people to get along like my favorite example of the different groups in Northern Ireland. Why would you expect it to go any better when the groups in question are even more distantly related?
This is why I say you (we all) need to learn a helluva lot of behavioral biology. Otherwise the discussions will just to continue to go 'round and 'round in an endless cycle of “you did this to us!” vs. “no, you did this to us first!” (Each side defending its own, genetic interests just like your Slavic ancestors vs. the Muslim invaders.) All of those details, however interesting they may be, are merely proximate causes. The ultimate cause here is that what we have in this situation is a quite unrelated group of people moving into territories occupied by other peoples and then not assimilating (genetically). Jews are by no means the only people who have done this—not by a long shot!—but other aspects of their evolutionary history (e.g. those which resulted in the high average IQ of Ashkenzi Jews) have made the situation a unique one.
The point that Eileen is trying to make was already explained in more humanistic terms by Tan in the other thread.
To clearly see the Jewish problem (also called the Jewish Question) requires that you realize and accept that Whites and Jews are not the same group and their group interests do not entirely coincide. But this is yet another truism that is difficult to calmly discuss in the face of hysterical anti-anti-semitism and totalitarian PC. I do not say that Whites are the master race and Jews are subhuman. I do not say that I want to exterminate Jews. I do not secretly crave such things and I resent anyone who projects their own imagined hatreds into my head.It’s the third time I quote this paragraph in these two threads.
Takuan Seiyo said...
The point that I have made already five times is that there is no such thing racially as “Jews” anymore than there is such a thing as “Mexicans.” When Jews arrived in Europe they were a distinct and different group. But a few years have passed since then, and a lot of blood mixing has occurred, not to speak of culture. There are 100% Jews and there are 6.25% Jews, and as elaborated before there are places where 20% of the non-Jews are Jews. I’ve spent some hundreds of words on that here, but it doesn’t penetrate to people who are determined that it not penetrate. It’s fine by me—I just don’t want to be here. I should find a different group. Goodbye, then.
Takuan Seiyo said:
The point that I have made already five times is that there is no such thing racially as “Jews” anymore than there is such a thing as “Mexican”.Race is not the issue here. (Please note that I never mentioned race because that is not what I’m talking about here.) No, Jews are not a race, but they are a distinct genetic group. More specifically, Ashkenazi Jews are a distinct genetic group. And they are distinct from Europeans. And that is the material point (and the ultimate cause of all the problems). Chechar said:
“The point that Eileen is trying to make was already explained in more humanistic terms by Tan in the other thread.”Thanks for quoting it again, Chechar. I’m embarrassed that I missed it the first two (or, rather, three) times!
Whites and Jews are, indeed, not the same group and their group interests do not—could not possibly!—exactly coincide. Same holds true for any two (or more) distinct groups thrown together. At the very least, the situation will inevitably be difficult.
Takuan Seiyo said...
Eileen, Neither you nor Captain Goebbels here address my point, nor refute it, nor does my point negate yours. We are like ships passing in the night... and that’s fine with me. No more time for the scum crawling all over this place. Maybe you and I will get to have an intelligent dialogue elsewhere, one day. Adieu.
Hmmm. Sorry you’ve left the discussion here, TS—but in case you do peek back in—I’m afraid you’ve lost me here. Which point of yours was it that I didn’t address or refute? I am genuinely confused here. I’ll go back and read what you wrote again to see if I can work it out... or maybe I’ll have the chance to ask you somewhere else.
I’ve stolen the following excerpts of responses to what Seiyo said about my “lightening” post, as well as to what Seiyo said in another e-mail to me, from the blog Antisemitica:
Fred Scrooby said…
I just read the linked Chechar thread. 1) Takuan Seiyo reveals himself, finally and conclusively, as a non-entity. 2) Taking part in long discussion among people who see Islam as the sole problem, people who deny race’s importance, either denying race exists or placing it quadrillionth on the list of what’s important out there in the year 2010—people like Fjordman and Conservative Swede, Takuan himself, and, please correct me, Baron Bodissey—to converse with these people is a fool’s errand. All such people are one-hundred percent assholes and borderline braindead who have zilch to say about zip. 3) in regard to Auster’s, Takuan’s, and many others’ use of the expression “anti-Semitic,” true, reasonable, valid criticism of Jews as Jews isn’t anti-Semitic. I criticise Jews a lot. I’m not anti-Semitic. As I’ve pointed out, neither is Hunter Wallace.
Well, since the blog doesn’t allow me to just fill in my name and post, and Google’s account code is good only for toilet paper IMO, I’ll respond here.
The basic Jewish trait is the desire to repair the world. From that desire sprung many good and many bad things over 3000 years (read Thomas Cahill’s “The Gift of the Jews.”). The problem is that since the mid-19th century, it’s mostly bad things.Mmm, I think ethnocentrism is the basic Jewish trait.
To begin with, my account was one sided only to complement the one-sided account of the antisemites.But now you’ve declared yourself as willingly presenting a one-sided argument, and your opponent has not. So clearly you have confessed guilt, while only accusing your opponent.
I do not negate an “over-represented” Jewish complicity with the Moors or the Bolsheviks, nor the damage that resulted to the peoples among whom them lived. I only wish to point out that in both cases it was a result of terrific persecution suffered by the Jews at the hands of the regimes they helped to abolish.The history of “Jewish persecution” has as much to do with persecution by Jews as it does persecution of Jews. You align with the vast majority of written history to present this Judeocentric one-sided story (so much for your desire for parity on anything but a local level).
As Fjordman has written—and he is a pure Norwegian BTW—the worst thing that has happened to white people, ever, was Hitler. Start from that and backtrack. Than you will be able to issue a critique of Jews that normal, educated people will want to listen to.You can read a lot of Tekuan’s stuff and come away with the idea you’ve got a guy you could comfortably agree to disagree with… right up until you come across a steaming pile of shit like that.
Convenient how Hitler, not Stalin, is the biggest lesson here, no? Yeah, yeah, Hitler dealt Eurocentrism it’s heaviest blow. Stalin? Who’s he? Why didn’t Stalin deliver a blow to anti-Eurocentrism so devastating we’ve practically never heard of Hitler, rather than the other way 'round? He can recommend scholarship in another tongue, but can’t reason like a 5th grader?
Since you and your kind profess to be on the side of the white autochthons, but at the same time you subvert and falsify the truth, you cannot but harm your own cause, lead to murder and chaos, and ultimately lose, ignominiously. Just as your über-idol did.Yep, full of it. He just played the Hitler card. Jews got where they did by spinning facts their way. No comment. Whites who want to do the same thing (according to him) are bad folks.
You and I shall remain in opposing and mutually disdaining camps of white ethnonationalists. The rest who care about the Fall of the West will have to choose sides. Goodbye.LOL! He admits he isn’t an ethnopatriot, even as he claims to be one. “Truth” is more important to him, to the point that he disdains his supposed compatriots and demands everyone choose sides.
I’ll choose a side—ethnopatriotism. Everyone who I perceive to be genuinely ethnopatriotic (conforming to a very simple principle roughly encapsulated in the 14 words) is on my side. This excludes Tekuan not because of our disagreement over Jews, but because he’s not an ethnopatriot.
Tekuan places truth over his people. That’s okay by me, but I put my people first. Thus, Tekuan and I part ways. I also value truth very highly. Fortunately for me, I find truth to be the best way to defend my people. But I would lie if that is what the situation called for. Again, fortunately, I don’t find that to be what the situation called for. Sticking to the truth is a great way to build a reputation for honesty. Tekuan’s striking me as more and more disingenuous, the more I read from him:
To begin with, “Jewry” is not organized and you have to be nuts to believe that it’s hostile.This is how he responds to statements about the behavior of organized Jewry! Amazing! He puts his foot in it by language-dropping and using words like autochthon; no one with such capabilities can behave so stupidly unless he wants to.
There is such a thing as “Jewish organizations”—but they represent a minority not majority of Jews.“I can read in four languages but I’m too dumb to know I just defined Organized Jewry.”
And if you believe that Jews are harmful, you’d have to qualify in what ways and whether intentionally or as a byproduct of ideas that they believe in sincerely and, in their minds, benignly.Why? If I’m an ethnopatriot first, and don’t value Jewish interests, why should I give a damn? Oh wait, I guess that’s what the discussion is really about—who’s an ethnopatriot, and who isn’t. Personally I do care, because I find I like to thoroughly understand an issue. However, that does not extend to writing 10,000 word essays to every putz like Tekuan that comes along.
Lastly, even when you have isolated those harmful ideas, behavior and such, you would have to explain why you are limiting the attribution of harm to Jews, but not to non-Jewish American liberals, at least ¾ of Western Europe’s population, and all mainstream Christian churches—all of which share precisely the same ideas, voting patterns and other behaviors.Whoops! Caught in a lie! (a bald assertion in contradiction of facts from someone like Tekuan is as good as a lie IMO; he obviously couldn’t give less of a shit about truth).
But time flies.It can be rough when you prevaricate the whole time. In fact, I think Hitler had some choice words about this (I know, I know, but he liked indoor plumbing and so do I so we already know I have something in common with the guy), which Stormfronters call “Jewspeak”.
I agree with your final conclusion. Note that I find no justification for current Jewish liberalism in any historical causes. I am against it, I am against liberal Jews, and excuses don’t matter. On the other hand, when the Nazi types pull out tales about the Jewish NKVD, or German Jewish Communists, or desecrating the host in medieval France, then history is relevant because there they are on such false and psychotic paths that it’s not only an offense against historical truth but also undermines any possibility of being taken seriously with respect to a critique of contemporary Jews.On both hands, the furthest Tekuan seems to go is Euros without rights to homelands of their own. Unless I missed that part somewhere. Ergo, not an ethnopatriot.
True, reasonable, valid criticism of Jews as Jews isn’t anti-Semitic. I criticise Jews a lot. I’m not anti-Semitic. As I’ve pointed out, neither is Hunter Wallace.I reject the premise of the question of “anti-Semitism” altogether. Jewish behavior is so bad, so egregious, that hand-wringing about “anti-Semitism” receives the same taint of malfeasance.
Fred Scrooby said…
“Seiyo comes off as being fundamentally dishonest and mendacious.” —Donald. Correct. He twists himself in knots trying to be consistent and of course only ends up twisting himself in knots. He’s not quite as bad as the others in this group (the Gates of Vienna / Brussels Journal / formerly Little Green Charles Johnson Turds group) in that he’s more willing to speak racial truth to power than some of these other specimens—but none of them, Takuan or anyone else, is willing to speak Jewish truth to power. In the States it’s mainly Jewish power you’re up against, while in Europe it’s mainly a combination of Jewish and communist power they’re up against.
You, of all people [Chechar’s note: he is referring to me since my web page is about psychiatry], should understand that there is deep psychosis there. If you want to discuss reality with paranoid-schizophrenics, I no more care for pathological Jew haters than I do for whitey-haters, feminazis etc.It never seems to occur to Jews that we reached conclusions based on many years of observing their behaviour. Nope. We are “pathological Jew haters” and “paranoid-schizophrenics”. I’d even guess most of us at one time were sympathetic to Jews. I was once very pro-Israel and couldn’t understand why someone would be anti-Semitic. Even after I first noticed Jewish over-representation in leftist movements and neoconservatism (a subversion of conservatism) I still rejected anti-Semitism for more than a decade. I’m not an overnight convert or someone who developed a sickness. For me anti-Semitism is something I resisted, something I wanted to resist and reject. But I love truth and hate lies. In the end I ran out of excuses for the Jews. I had to reluctantly accept the ugly truth. But, hey, why bother arguing about facts when you can just pathologise members of an outgroup whose conclusions (and interests) differ from your own. Fred is right: Takuan is a non-entity.
So, after reading as much of Tekuan from that link as I could stomach:
At this stage it would be quixotic to expel Jewish liberals from the country when there are far greater numbers of non-Jewish liberals. The solution is to emancipate both Jews and non-Jews from their liberalism.This is often on the lips of people who oppose white independence. “We can’t talk about it because it’s not feasible.” Best way to guarantee it remains not feasible? Convince everyone it’s inherently not feasible. These people never seem to just shoot the shit over the issue, though. You know, a hypothetical conversation. All the other stuff we discuss hypothetically is presumably going to happen soon. That’s why they’ll discuss all that stuff; it passed the naysayers’ feasibility studies.
And, as Larry Auster and I have both written, this is not going to happen until the consequences of liberalism are so plainly disastrous that further evasion of the truth is impossible. Hence worse is indeed better.Nah. Worse isn’t better. It’s plenty bad enough to awaken any decent human being who has the matter brought to his attention. The problem is only a scant few are paying attention. “Worse” isn’t going to help us any at this point.
[Svigor quotes Adam’s comment about Tanstaafl:] It’s fascinating to see how quickly Auster has gone, in your view, from being an indispensible mentor to Tel Aviv’s Satanic puppet. I suggest that this speaks to nothing but the rapidity of your descent into Jew-hatred.Yeah, kinda like how quickly you change your opinion of your best friend when you find out he’s been banging your wife for ten years; rapid descent into hatred.
[Svigor quotes Russel:] Anti-Semitism does not W-O-R-K. It does not reach Whites.Anti-Semitism” reached me. I’m white.
[Svigor again quotes Seiyo:] You, of all people, should understand that there is deep psychosis there. If you want to discuss reality with paranoid-schizophrenics, you better have nothing better to do in life. But I’ll try addressing a few points.You’re quick to roll in the mud with the dogs.
a. The minorities to which the [Larry Auster] law applies contribute very little on the positive side, and greatly on the negative side. The Jewish minority has and is contributing greatly on the positive side [Chechar’s note of 14 September 2010: It now appears to me that this is absolutely false. See, e.g., my comments emphasized with red color in the other threads], in addition to its negative influences. In fact, if you take away the Jewish contribution in religion, science, medicine, business, philosophy, literature and all the arts, you may not have what we know as Western civilization and its achievements at all. [Chechar’s note: Ibidem. Seiyo commits the category-error fallacy here: mixing apples with oranges.]Lol. I’ll just pull us back from this hyperbole by pointing out that Jews have benefited far more from Euros than vice-versa. Or are you going to be the guy to explain why Jews didn’t bring their home turf (Levant, Middle East, southwest Asia, etc.) into the first world? What good is literature if you’re dead? Jews have done far more harm to us than good. And the good hasn’t necessitated their presence amongst us. They have light bulbs in China, and they aren’t all screwed in by crackers. Jewish contributions are always neutral ones; invent the hammer, yeah the Euro man can acquire the technology and build a hammer of his own; yeah this improves his life, but it’s not like anyone actually gave him a hammer. Jewish malfeasance, however, has in contrast consistently been of the direct, targeted kind, relatively speaking. In other words, if a guy makes me a hundred grand and then shoots me in the head, talking about how nice he was for giving me a hundred grand is nutso-kutso. No favor’s worth dying over.
I say arguably, because without the Jews I see the West evolving as a possible Sparta; I cannot see it as an Athens.Heh, and he calls us crazy. That kind of Jew-worship is pretty creepy coming from a non-Jew.
Both Auster and I have expressed repeatedly opinions highly critical of American Jews. I have received a few polite letters of dissent from Jewish readers, and that’s that. The censure comes when psychotic crypto-nazis step in with their Aryan primacy, Holocaust-denial, blood libels, “Mossad was behind it” etc.I see you’re down in the dirt with the dogs again. People who give Jews a rhetorical slap on the wrist are “psychotic crypto-Nazi Aryan-firsters Holocaust-denier blood-libeler conspiracy theorists.” Wow, you’re right, you’ve got my platform down pat! I love it when my opponent knows what I really think. Saves so much time. Usually it’s leftists who display this remarkable telepathy while they duck and dodge.
…healing the problems of White society by getting rid of the Jews in one way or another.Nah. I’m just the messenger. I want my racial plebiscite on the JQ. How my people vote is their business.
But Jews have been an integral part of White society for about 2300 years now—much longer than the Hungarians and other Eastern European peoples who migrated to Europe from Central Asia. Through the fiat of Rome, Europe has been the Jews’ primary home since 70 AD.“Integral” is one of those say-nothing words that people think means more than it does, i.e., in this case, “necessary to function.” But it doesn’t. Integral means part of a whole. It’s basically an observation that Jews are part of Euro history. So what? The Black Death’s just as integral a part of European history (and therefore, culture).
Jews have lived in America since the days of the first Spanish conquistadores—long before the ancestors of most of the current crop of antisemites arrived there.Just listen to this guy! Is he fooling anyone about his priorities? Show of hands.
On the basis of what do some people arrogate to themselves the right to decide whether European-origin Jews are properly White or properly American?AHHHHHH! Now I see! I don’t have the right to exclude Jews! I’m second to a Jew, you see. Jews get Israel; I get bupkiss. Hahahaha, there’s really no way for me to take this guy seriously.
Pro-white? Really? Are you effin’ kiddin’ me? He’s got “white” all sewed up as a second back door for Jews, and whites have no right to define Jews out of any self-identified group; if I qualify, a Jew automatically qualifies. I’m skipping the rest of this guy’s posts. Maybe when I don’t have something better to do. Right now I have to practice tying my shoes.
ben tillman said…
Lastly, even when you have isolated those harmful ideas, behavior and such, you would have to explain why you are limiting the attribution of harm to Jews, but not to non-Jewish American liberals…In moot court, we called those “softball” questions. Why? Because “non-Jewish American liberals” are the extended phenotype of the Jewish community. They’re not acting in their own interest, so—as a straightforward biological fact—they are being manipulated by another entity whose interests ARE being served. Biologically, and logically, it cannot be otherwise.
“I’ll choose a side—ethnopatriotism. Everyone who I perceive to be genuinely ethnopatriotic (conforming to a very simple principle roughly encapsulated in the 14 words) is on my side. This excludes Tekuan; not because of our disagreement over Jews, but because he’s not an ethnopatriot. Tekuan places truth over his people.”But he is an ethnopatriot. He’s half Jewish so he supports Jews. Not surprising in the least.
Takuan Seiyo’s obnoxiousness is breathtaking. He must have gone to the same charm school as Lawrence Auster. He won’t even address criticism. He has the typical Jewish response to being challenged: Pathologise, then purge the challenger. At Gates of Vienna he’s demanding that certain posters get lost. This is how they operate. They worm their way into a group then insist on excluding those who do not toe the line.
“He has the typical Jewish response to being challenged: Pathologise, then purge the challenger.” Yes, the typical modus operandi of the Soviet commissars. Opponents should be purged of “ideological impurities”. See his laments about “the deep antisemitism” of some posters as the last obstacle in the counter-jihad blogosphere. These posters should conform to the rules or be eliminated, and a new shining era of progress will emerge, comrades.
Fred Scrooby said…
Chechar, that was an extremely interesting Gates of Vienna thread. I just read it down to almost half-way through the comments. They have some very good commenters over there, something I wasn’t aware of—I thought GoV was strictly a Jewish neocon parrot, sort of “the sole threat anyone should be concerned about today is Islam’s threat to Israel together with anything else deemed a threat or undesirable by the Israeli Likud Party, Abe Foxman, Rabbi Marvin Hier, Leon Wieseltier, Elie Wiesel, Alan Dershowitz, or AIPAC. Anybody having any racial thoughts in his head is the worst kind of criminal scum imaginable and does not deserve to live. Diaspora Jewish Zionists and Jewish Israelis are exempt from that: they can have all the racial thoughts they want and it’s OK—but only them, no Euros!” Obviously, a glance at that thread shows how wrong I was about Bodissey and the GoV commentariat.
In the thread “Tanstaafl on Auster” I had posted the second e-mail essay by Seiyo that Antisemitica commenters responded above, of which I'll only quote the last sentence:
Takuan Seiyo said...
As I wrote before, I have less interest in Jewish apologetics than people like MacDonald and our friends here have in Jewish philippics. Antisemitism is the world’s oldest mass psychosis—it goes back to third century BC Alexandria. If you do not understand that you are dealing with paranoid schizophrenics, I cannot do the work of explaining it; you are short of basic education in this subject.
I’m not interested in the long comments arguing that there’s no sense in arguing. It must be the paranoid-schizophrenia that makes me imagine I’m being insulted.
Takuan Seiyo said:
“Antisemitism is the world’s oldest mass psychosis— it goes back to third century BC Alexandria. If you do not understand that you are dealing with paranoid schizophrenics, I cannot do the work of explaining it; you are short of basic education in this subject.”This is just nonsense (as was most of Freud’s ramblings, btw—nothing properly scientific about Freud’s theories). As I said in the comments to the previous post, the reason that Jews are often disliked is simply because they are a different biological group than the majority in whatever nation they happen to be residing.
All groups will dislike and distrust unrelated groups, to greater or lesser degrees, because they represent competition in the Great Game of Life. And, depending on the circumstances, the dislike and distrust can grow stronger. In good times, one can tolerate a competing group in one’s territory, sharing one’s resources. This becomes less tolerable in bad times.
It’s not “paranoid schizophrenia” that leads some people (or sometimes a lot of people) to dislike and distrust Jews. It’s the fact that they are a different genetic group competing for the same resources. Jews have not assimilated biologically since the 3rd century BC in Alexandria. They are still a separate group wherever they are. Of course they’re going to be disliked as a group.
This is really the fundamentals of biology we’re talking about here.
Takuan Seiyo said...
Further thoughts. The question you asked, i.e. does LA’s [Lawrence Auster] 1st Law apply to Jews is something so obviously out of alignment with the basics that it really takes some effort to deal with it. It’s as though you asked me if Newton’s laws apply to the heliocentric system. But that’s why it’s a valuable question.
Anyway, because it’s so obvious, the most obvious point eluded me in the prior response. The behavior of the other minorities falls under LA’s 1st law because it’s behavior that’s criminal or at least harmful by universal standards. When MSM write about anti-Hispanic prejudice rather than about DUI deaths caused by Hispanic immigrant, or social costs, or gang murders, that’s is LA’s 1st. And far more so in matters related to Blacks. Ditto when they talk about “Religion of Peace” and the value of diversity instead of the murder, mayhem and intolerance that comes with Muslim immigration.
On the other hand, what you and I consider terrible damage wrought by Jews, the great majority of White society considers a wonderful thing. Nothing makes the average American prouder than Civil Rights legislation. Obama is “The One” not only to 78% of Jews but to 43% of Whites in general, and far more so among White females, Catholics, people with academic degrees etc. The top and predominantly Celtic-Anglo-Germanic brass of the US Military signs the praise of Diversity far louder than any Jew in the land. The Migra Act of 1965 was championed by an Irishman, passed by a Congress in which there were very few Jews, and signed into law by Johnson. And its first comprehensive denunciator was a Jew, Laurence [sic] Auster.
So not only is there a tremendous positive far more salient than in the other minorities, but what we perceive as negative is not perceived as a negative by majority standards.
It’s “obvious” Auster’s First Law of Majority-Minority Relations in Liberal Society doesn’t apply to the liberal minority called jews?
Criticism of those “other minorities” gets branded as a mental illness called “racism”, but this has nothing to do with criticism of jews getting branded as a mental illness called “anti-semitism”? Who’s calling who paranoid/ schizophrenic?
There is a fundamental contradiction in Seiyo’s argument. On the one hand he says everything is very nuanced and complicated, so we shouldn’t consider anything in a vacuum, without a complement or counterpoint. He advises erudition to the point of snobbery, implying we can’t possibly have an informed opinion unless we’ve read obscure books A, B, C, in languages X, Y, and Z. Then on the other hand he simultaneously presents this pat explanation of “jew-hate” as insanity. Period.
The truth, for those who will endure the insults to get at it, is not simple, but it isn’t so complicated either.
Russel, your negativity is not helpful. You don’t solve problems by ignoring their causes. Whether you want to talk about “anti-semitism” or not, jews do, because they see it as a major problem. Pro-White is inherently “anti-semitic”, just as pro-jew is inherently anti-White. There is a conflict between White and jewish interests. If you are pro-White you will be accused of “anti-semitism”. We must deal with this, somehow, not ignore it.
The exchange here is part of the attempt to do that. Media and academia and government are literally swarming with anti-Whites, but “last time I checked” Auster and Seiyo, who pretend to be our friends, actually treat Pat Buchanan and Kevin MacDonald as the bigger problem. False friends like this are worse than open enemies. They seek to neutralize and marginalize pro-Whites who don’t put jewish interests first. They do it while paying lip service to our concerns and under the guise that they have our interests in mind.
When “white autochthons” come to realize that the truth on our side is that we have been indoctrinated to hate ourselves and defer to non-Whites because most jews think it’s good for jews, then we will be able to reject and reverse this poisonous indoctrination and start to thrive again.
Takuan Seiyo said...
Listen, punk: Just what do you mean by “our interest” and “our friends.” Your ass was saved by my Slav ancestors numerous times in history, as they were the first line of Europe’s defense against encroaching Islamic invasions. I mean this literally; my family’s lands were the site of several such battles, and I have an ancestor who was with Sobieski in Vienna. Second, where have you found anything negative that I have stated about Buchanan? Third, my father was a Jew. Both his and my mother’s families were wiped out by your kind. I see you as my direct and mortal enemy, and I shall treat you as such. I’ll have nothing to do with Chechar as long as he has anything to do with you.
Well met Seiyo. You finally admit you do see a we and a you, and furthermore, you think we owe you. I’m glad you cleared that up.
Takuan Seiyo said:
“There have been many reasons that have led people to dislike or mistrust Jews, and yes biological difference has been one of them—though not for about the first 600 years in the history of this syndrome.”You misunderstand, TS. I am not talking about what reasons people give for their behavior toward Jews (or for any behavior, in fact). I’m talking about what actually drives peoples’ actions and that is the fact that we are biological creatures subject to all the laws of Nature just like all other biological creatures.
Biological difference has not been just one reason that some peoples have disliked / distrusted Jews—it is the reason. (Again, this does not just apply to Jews—it’s also why, for instance, the Protestants & Catholics in Northern Ireland hate each other.) In Europe, Ashkenazi Jews are a biologically unrelated groups to all the majority (and, for that matter, minority) populations in every country in which they reside or have resided. Ashkenazis may have acquired some genes from indigenous locals, but they remain a distinct, biological group. It is for this reason that, especially in bad times, they are disliked and distrusted. It doesn’t matter what reasons people give for why they dislike Jews—the biological un-relatedness is the ultimate cause.
I recommend that you start informing yourself about the basics of biology. Start with an introductory university biology textbook for the basics if you don’t have any knowledge of biology at all. Then, move on to Dawkins’ two books: The Selfish Gene and The Extended Phenotype. Then, very importantly, read E.O. Wilson’s Sociobiology and Consilience: The Unity of Knowledge. You might also want to try reading up on kin selection—W.D. Hamilton is your man there. Google “genetic similarity theory” while you’re at it, too. And, if you’re very daring, I suggest On Ethnic Genetic Interests by Frank Salter & the Max Planck Institute.
I don’t suggest any of this flippantly. This is the 21st century and there is no excuse for intelligent, informed persons not to be well read in the basic sciences such as biology. You’ll be doing yourself a big favor. On the one hand, you’ll start to understand human behavior in a way you never dreamt of—and you’ll also be prepared for all the genetic research that is literally coming down the pipeline every day and which humans will be able to employ, for good or ill, in the shaping of the future of our species.
And maybe, just maybe, if we all understand what really motivates human behaviors—rather than focusing on contemporary politically correct dreams or, nearly just as bad, Enlightenment ideas about Man as rational actors—we might be able to work out solutions for peaceful coexistence which will be equitable (or as equitable as possible) for all.
TS: “I just don’t like reductionist theories. So instinctively I’ll go with this 60-70%. If it’s more, I’ll have to read more before I buy it.”Of course. One should absolutely read up on subjects before one buys into anything. I heartily agree! I have to say, though, that there’s nothing reductionist about understanding that human behavior is based in biology. What else could it be based upon? Unless we’re all brains in vats or living in a Matrix-like world, we are biological creatures and the rules of biology must apply.
I forgot to suggest that you should also get familiar with behavioral biology. Read up on the behavior of other animals, especially mammals—chimps in particular—although even the social lives of bacteria can be very enlightening! If you don’t have time to read up on animal behavior, turn on the Nature Channel (if you have a television!) while you’re eating and watch a few episodes of Meerkat Manor. That’ll tell you all you need to know about how genetic relationships influence the behavior of animals when it comes to claiming and maintaining control of territory and resources, which is, after all, what we’re talking about here.
In the same days, in another blogsite, the blogger known as “Accidentaldissent” said:
It’s about time I posted something so I thought I’ll post this reply to Takuan Seiyo that I was unable to post to the GoV [Gates of Vienna] blog:Takuan, you’re not arguing in good faith. That much is clear. Unlike the others, though, I won’t impute nefarious motives to you. Read on.
These “Aryan Supremacists” you deride, at bottom, just want to be able to preserve their racial existence in what they, rightly or wrongly, justly or unjustly, regard as their homelands. That’s the heart of the matter. Yes, “western civilization” and all the rest of it, too, but society is a racial construct so all of that—the “civilization,” the architecture, the literature, the simple, everyday “ways or being” etc—springs forth rather naturally simply from their being—or at least they can be expected to, once their minds are cleared of the “anti-discrimination” and “all-sex-all-the-time” anti-culture culture. (Conversely, a racial “shift” away from what the founding stock of those countries is also shifts the culture away from what culturists like you wish to preserve, so there’s something in it for you to think about too.) All very “nazi,” I suppose. And yet how many interactions with those decidedly, drastically different “others” will it take before we consider the thesis confirmed? (Or the alternative thesis, that “diversity,” whatever the hell it is, sure as hell ain’t a “strength.”)
I share your anxieties, Tak. At least I used to. But what the hell, we have to pick sides, and when you get down to it, what “the nazis winning” really means is someone like me (and I dare say someone like you) ending up living with people racially/ethnically like myself—in other words, hardly a nightmare ending. Now to achieve that—to get there from here—it’s going to require a pretty hefty reshuffling of the deck, so resistance to any solution that’s going to cause so much upheaval is understandable. But make no mistake, that is what it is going to require. You simply can’t have any place remaining, say, 55% white, 30% black and 15% Asian, because the people are going to mix. And mix. And mix and mix and mix. And eventually they’ll completely race-replace the founding population. So we’re talking about forcing people to leave, or at least providing them incentives to leave, or at the very least to separate (you know, “segregate”). And you know, there is historical precedent for it. If the French could leave Algeria, the Algerians can leave France; if the Dutch could leave Indonesia, the Indonesians can leave Holland. And so on and so forth. (And just for the Cap’n: and the slimy, greasy and too often smarmy wogs—not naming any names—can leave Australia.)
Now, “2000 years!” you exclaim. And yes, I agree. It’s not nothing. And the blacks, 300 years. Not nothing either. But fair and reasonable people can find fair and reasonable solutions. Or what of my ancestral homelands, packed solid with supposedly “unassimilable” Gypsies; they’re hardly the same thing as the founding stock, true, but time and chance will see them “assimilated” as surely as the black and the white (and the yellow and the brown) will meld in America—unless enough of us protest to the contrary.
The takeaway point for you, Takuan, is that neither the desire for racial survival itself nor the means that might reasonably be utilized to achieve it are immoral. We’ve been spending the last 65 years beating the “nazis,” and in many, many ways we live in a better world now than we did then, but if it isn’t clear by now, in 2010, that it’s set to be the greatest Pyrrhic victory in history I suppose there really aren’t any words I could say that could make it so.
By checking up date and timing I noticed that after Seiyo said Adieu he started to post, in a Gates of Vienna thread, stuff about the JQ. In a sense, it was a continuation of our discussion with commenters who would basically agree with him.
When a few nationalists and I dared to post there, we got shunned. Zero replies to any of our six posts. I guess that honest discussion with my former friends about the JQ will be a little tricky.
Below I republish those posts. To date, after Seiyo’s exchange with TC nobody has answered the rest of the comments:
TakSei: I just only now saw that you had responded to my comment on March 1st. What the hell is wrong with you to talk down to me like that and to make totally unsubstantiated accusations concerning me and “my people” (Whites?) and the “poison that has seeped into me”? Are you quite well?
Takuan Seiyo said...
TC, I did not mean to offend you, but I detected a whiff of, let’s say, a gelled anti-Jew mental landscape in your post. And no, I am not quite well. I had just spent five days participating in a discussion thread on another website with a number of people who post here plus some out and out Nazis, all dumping on the Jews in a manner that was revolting. Also on me, for taking the other side of that bet. I consider deep antisemitism the ultimate toxin to the goals of what this blog is all about. Ditto, such entities as AmRen and other dhimmitude-defying islands. Hence my reaction.
Perhaps I misconstrued your comment and over-reacted. In the future, please be more specific.
TakSei: Frankly, I don’t care how stressed out you are by discussions in other blogs. If you detect “whiffs” of something or other in people’s comments, that predestines you to an existence as Blockwart, my poor friend, but not to a career as political essayist.
And, for the record, I will be as “precise” in my comments as I want to be and you will have to live with that. I have enough people breathing “islamophobe” and “racist” down my neck. I don’t need another “protected minority” in my life, calling me anti-semitic!
You are not doing your cause any favors with your hysterical reactions to opinions you dislike.
Takuan Seiyo said...
TC, I have no “cause” other than my country and my civilization. I presume we share the latter but have opposing view points. To each his own. It’s a free country. Say what you will and leave me be to say what I will. Out.
“I had just spent five days participating in a discussion thread on another website with a number of people who post here plus some out and out Nazis, all dumping on the Jews in a manner that was revolting.”I guess it’s this entry in my blog.
Fjordman made an important point that isn’t stated often enough:
The ruling oligarchs of the Western world feel no ethnic loyalty whatsoever with other whites. On the contrary, they despise them.He also correctly pointed out that their agenda is neither suicidal nor accidental. Then come Seiyo and Agent Chameleon to save us from this line of thought, and redirect blame back where it really belongs: “us” and “nutjobs”. Agent Chameleon writes:
We did this to ourselves, and we will never be able to pull ourselves out of this mess until we sit down and try to understand what led to our suicideI’ve thought about it. The first thought that occurs to me is: who is “we”? The second: anyone who thinks about preventing their “suicide” obviously isn’t suicidal. Seiyo writes:
The same case for ethnic cleansing in the interest of group survival is being made by the White Power people with respect to the Jews. And it’s by no means an inherently insane position that ought to be dismissed without considering its genesis. If it is crazy, it’s because the White Cuckoos (“WCs”) falsify history, libel and lie in all that relates to the Jews, and gloss over statistics in order to arrive at their predetermined conclusion. And the conclusion is evil, even if some of the argumentation isn’t.Clearly Seiyo finds it acceptable to libel, lie, and distort history in the interest of scapegoating not only “White Power people”, “White Cuckoos”, “Aryan Supremacists”, and “nutjobs”, but also “America”, “White Americans”, and “Europe”.
The reason Aryan Supremacists and related nutjobs are so detrimental to the cause of redress is that they are unable and unwilling to discern fine points of history, of justice, and of the science of statistics. America has brought the punishment of Black dysfunction on itself through slavery (different colonialism-related causes in Western Europe too much to go into here). White Americans have no right (on any plane of rights) to speak as though they were the Americans and the Blacks are not, when the latter have been here for over 300 years and brought in involuntarily too.
The Jews did not ask to live in Europe. They were mainly brought there as slaves, in the last 30 years of the 1st century A.D. You would be entirely justified to an opinion that Europe made a mistake, it should never have brought Semites to Europe. But you are not entitled to redress that error, if you consider it such, 2000 years after the unsolicited phenomenon took place.
With friends like this—dictating what “we” must do, who “we” must include, who “we” must exclude, blaming “us” for everything—who needs enemies?
I am surprised and heartened to see such a post at a blog I tend to think of as anti-Islamic more than nationalist. But how seriously do you mean to take the Mohawks as a model? o/p Bodissey said:
This story is the type to warm the cruel cockles of a conservative’s heart, because it puts the liberal mind into brain-freeze.The right-liberal establishment—the UK’s Conservatives, America’s Republicans etc.—also fumbles here. And the inability of many people in this thread to allow European peoples to distinguish ourselves from Jews suggests many of your readers also suffer a mental block.
Tracey Deer, publisher of The Eastern Door, the local paper and website, says everyone agrees native land is for native people, but the issue is dividing the Mohawk community.This agreement provides our most opportune entry into the broader political debate. When “everyone agrees” that “native land is for native people”—at least as regards Amerindian, Asian and African peoples—we Europeans have an unassailable moral claim to assert the same right ought apply to us.
As long as different ethnic groups live closely commingled and unassimilated, the tensions leading towards drastic solutions will always be there. Ethnic cleansing is the kinder, gentler alternative to genocide… The policy failures that produced these catastrophes-in-waiting occurred within living memory.This is false, the problem is age-old. Posters to this thread have provided numerous examples of conflict between European peoples and the alien group historically most present in our societies. Conflicts of interest in such circumstances are a universal and eternal problem. What’s new is that when European peoples (and us only) make a self/non-self distinction we are accused of racism or antisemitism, this because the West’s ruling elite is entirely made up of non-Euros and Euro-deracinated. Predictably, this coalition is supportive of ethnonationalism for non-Euros but opposed to Euro ethnonationalism. The “alternative” Seiyo, Fjordman or Agent Chameleon would establish clearly has the same fundamental problem, privileging others over ourselves. I hope I am not so late that Agent Chameleon misses this post. He said:
Indeed, WNs should not be denying the Holocaust, but instead recognizing how evil the destruction of an ethnic group is... We need to construct a paradigm where we accept the Holocaust happened and that it does not invalidate white nationalism in the slightest. Rather it reminds us of how important HBD (Human Biodiversity) is, and why nationalism must always be tempered with compassion and understanding, rather than hate and saber-rattling.Whatever the truth of that controversy it does not invalidate our nationalisms—the questions are entirely separate, except for those prosecuting our race-replacement—so why demand a party-line? In a recent show James Edwards pointed out that Geert Wilders demands free-speech in service of truth when it comes to Islam but is silent when it comes to the hundreds of people prosecuted for questioning the conventional wisdom on Germany’s WWII treatment of Jews. Don’t you agree that this complaint is valid? Truth and free-speech are not tools to be manipulated to protect Jewish sensitivities or oppose Islam’s aggression, they are our values and our way of doing things, Jews and Muslims be damned!
TS, what are your thoughts of the American Third Position party? I was excited about hearing of a WN political party, but then was disappointed when finding out that Kevin MacDonald and James Edwards are leading it. It’s probably going to be antisemite central.
“There was hope until Jared Taylor made the tent large enough for the firm of Duke & Stormfront.” I am so mad at him over this.Duke, like MacDonald and James Edwards are exceedingly politic in their positions. Contrary to hysterical smears they do not “blame Jews for everything.” Their settled positions, whether by design or not, are pretty much morally unimpeachable. They are antisemitic only in the modern Orwellian sense, i.e., they demand equal rights with Jews to differentiate themselves, and in ben tillman’s definition: they believe that some conflicts of interests between Jews and others may reasonably be resolved in favour of the non-Jews. This is all they say, and all that is necessary to get them labelled “moronic Jew-hating, Holocaust-denying Nazi psycho wannabes.” Why cleave to these double standards so prejudicial to your own people’s interests?
I have discussed Kevin MacDonald with you before. You admitted not having read his work. I think it’s time you did. As before I’m happy to send you Culture of Critique in PDF form and A People that Shall Dwell Alone and Separation and its Discontents in WORD. Want ’em?
While recommending MacDonald, I think the best place to start a study of Euro-Jew/Jew-Other relations is the Bible and the Talmud. Read the Talmud online at come-and-hear.com. Also excellent as introductions are Israel Shahak’s Jewish History, Jewish Religion and Albert Lindemann’s Esau’s Tears.
Another “shunning” in another Gates of Vienna thread apparently occurred just after Tan’s response to Seiyo here:
Takuan Seiyo writes:
There are fair reasons why you should think the way you do, and both Lawrence Auster (not a pal of mine) and I have expressed ourselves in a fair and objective way on this matter, while each acknowledging the bias he and I share along with tens of millions of American who have no Jewish genes: support for Israel. The sort of attacks that Auster and I have been subjected to by “White Christian patriots”, and the vocabulary used, including in this blog, leave one reeling.I know that the posting policy on this blog [Gates of Vienna] requires comments that are civil, temperate, on-topic, and show decorum, so I’d like to know which “attacks” you refer to. I think it’s clear you’re not fair or objective when it comes to jews. On the one hand you find no criticism of jews complete without a thorough rumaging through history that always arrives at the conclusion that they’re only reacting to vilification by “nutjobs”. On the other are those “nutjobs”, “White Power people”, “White Cuckoos”, “White Christian patriots”, etc. (How such pejoratives make it past comment moderation is separate question, but I assume it has to do with you being a regular here, and that you’re demonizing some vague group rather than directly addressing whoever last got you reeling.) The point is, you show an obvious deference to jews, and an obvious hate for anyone you think doesn’t.
The key to turning more Jews toward the causes you care about is not to stop criticizing negative Jewish contributions, as long as well-informed, but to stop doing so in a language ranging from intemperate to hateful/genocidal (the latter two not yours). Also, to stop vilifying such Jews or semi-Jews who are on your side as though they were plants of the Elders of Zion with nefarious plots to co-opt and destroy white people and peoples (not “Christian,” because in the particular case I am citing, both Auster and I are Christian).
Is it hateful / genocidal to say that? Is it even intemperate? Is this what your mind interprets as “plants of the Elders of Zion with nefarious plots to co-opt and destroy white people and peoples”, or did somebody actually accuse you of that?
I ask because “We support Israel” is the explicit stand of this blog. I get the strong impression “We support jews” is too, though I don’t see it plainly stated anywhere. Is it hateful / genocidal / intemperate to note this? How about, “I’m not jewish and I can see support for jews sometimes interferes with supporting my own people”? How about, “I’m not jewish and I support my own people, not jews”? I’d like to know where exactly, in your mind, this line of thinking crosses the line into “nutjob”.
In still another GoV thread Conservative Swede said:
Yes, it’s like in The Body Snatchers. We are surrounded by them everywhere, among our friends etc. But it is even worse than in the movie, since unlike in the movie there are false friends, who will even warn against the body snatchers, but still burst out with “antisemite!” or “Nazi!”, in the same manner.The Body Snatchers is a 1956 film: a metaphor Seiyo uses throughout his magnum opus From Meccania to Atlantis, just as I use another 1956 film metaphor to explain my book’s thesis.
I wish I could end this entry by saying that, to cool down the hard emotions that inevitably arise when discussing the JQ with the other side, I’d recommend watching any of those two films: infinitely better than the anti-white propaganda in James Cameron’s Avatar. But I must end it by confessing that my last words at VFR—after Auster accused me of anti-Semitism for daring to see the Jewish problem—were in fact a quotation of what Svigor said way above: Antisemitic? “Yeah, kinda like how quickly you change your opinion of your best friend when you find out he’s been banging your wife for ten years; rapid descent into hatred.”
What changed my mind so abruptly a month ago was to discover that, for decades, the American Jews had been pushing strongly to open the immigration gates. California, which used to be Seiyo’s home, will now disintegrate as my Mexico City neighborhood disintegrated with the invasion of millions of semi-Indians.
There’s nothing wrong with this rapid descent into hatred either on this side of the border or in the States, where you guys will have to pay the Obamacare bills for lots of semi-Indians: further dispossession of whites by a liberal Negro, ultimately as the result of a clash not of civilizations, but of ethnic groups.
My dear Anglo-Saxon neighbors: When will you wrap your heads around Eileen’s concept, stated above, that there are indeed conflicts of ethnic interests of your folk vis-à-vis the American negroes, your semi-Indian invaders and, yes, the Jews?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Monday, March 15, 2010
Friday, March 12, 2010
The hypothesis that I am trying to develop elsewhere is that today’s “group fantasy” among many westerners is but a suicidal monster from the Id. Yes: Jewish ethnic interests may have played a major role in this thoroughgoing suicidal fantasy. But at the same time I believe that Kevin MacDonald’s model cannot explain everything.
That anti-white racism among whites, our Id monster, is widespread in most of present-day westerners is all too evident when reading a history of the original Euro-Americans. Franklin for one was such a Cassandra that he manifested serious concerns that the English character of the new America could dilute in the future because of non-Caucasian immigration. This explains his opposition to importing slaves. Franklin even asked the rhetorical question of why, having so fair an opportunity, not exclude blacks and tawnys to increase the lovely white? “I could wish their Numbers were increased.” Obviously, neither Indians nor blacks had the right to vote in Franklin’s day.
After the war that tore America apart Lincoln said that blacks were out of place in America. The Occidental Quarterly Online (TOQ)—one of the few sites which appears in my blog list—is publishing a series of articles on the need of secession, where deep motivation is paramount. It is worth noting that in the chapter about 1815-1850 of A History of the American People Paul Johnson claims that only because the peoples who moved to Utah were religiously motivated could the construction of the new nation in the West became possible. Nonetheless, it was precisely during those years when the Christian morality rebelled against slavery, just as the First Great Awakening had meant the death sentence for British colonialism. Since the Jews were involved in neither, this little piece of info gives plausibility to my view that something escapes MacDonald’s model.
On a lesser note, a passage I liked of A History of the American People is a Kendall communication to Andrew Jackson telling him that someday Anglo-Saxons will be majority in Mexico, and that this would improve that country. (Long before reading it I dared to say something very similar here in Mexico!) Another gracious vignette are General Scott’s words after the marines raised the American flag in 1847 for the first time “from the Halls of Montezuma.”
Johnson’s book is far from perfect. In his final chapter, after writing about the feminist revolution of the 1960s Johnson doesn’t seem to see the weapon of mass destruction that feminism—a typical Id monster—turned out to be for our civilization. Nor did he say a word about the need for a complete reversal of feminism if we are to escape the extinction that fell upon the Krell.
A City upon a Hill
“Never doubt that a small group of committed people can change the world. Indeed, it is the only thing that ever has.” —Richard McCulloch quoting a foeIt is incredible how I have changed since I first read Paul Johnson’s A History of the American People in 2004. At that time I was still a liberal; got dismayed that Bush was reelected, and purchased a translation of Johnson’s book to understand the United States better. Now that I am rereading it I am dismayed at how the wealthiest and, in many ways, greatest nation in history could have elected not Bush, but a black who personifies the anti-white ideology that westerners suffer. Barely on page 24 of Johnson’s book I was amazed to realize that it is as if another person was reading it after these six years. (Only that explains that in 2006-2007 I made friends with online liberals whom I am no longer on speaking terms.)
However, there is a subject about which I have not changed my mind since 2004. Johnson’s A History showed me that during an ethnic conflict, as was the encounter between Europeans and Amerindians, Jackson’s campaigns were much healthier to the preservation of our civilization than the Spaniards’ miscegenation: the basic etiology of Mestizo America’s backwardness (“Latin America” is a term that should be restricted to some neighborhoods in Chile, Uruguay and Argentina, or to the white families at the south of the U.S. border).
While it is refreshing that Johnson states in the preface that, unlike other historians, he will not abstain from advancing value judgments, he fails miserably when he claims he is beyond the politically correct. On the very first page of the section titled “A City upon a Hill (1580-1750)”, Johnson talks about the dispossession of the indigenous population and asks if the United States has atoned for its sins. Taking into account how Amerindians behaved before the European conquest (cf. my latest entry) I don’t see anything serious to atone for. So-called conservative Johnson is playing the liberal card of Western (false) guilt here.
Most important about that first section of Johnson’s book is the Anglo-Saxon myth that in the 16th century the English had replaced the Jews as the chosen nation: an important factor in American history which also helped Elizabethan England in their fight against Catholic Spain. Michael O’Meara has published powerful articles in TOQ demonstrating that what moves societies is not scientific fact, e.g. IQ studies of blacks versus whites, but myths. Only myths can galvanize the collective unconscious of a nation. Homer’s epic hypnotized the minds of the ancient Greeks, not the geometric discoveries of the Ionia scientists and philosophers.
In my very first post in the commenters section of TOQ (an O’Meara article, “The Sword”) I wrote:
O’Meara is basically right. Myth is certainly what moves the soul. That’s why, inspired in Nordic culture, J.R.R. Tolkien strove to create a myth to the point of inventing euphonically aesthetic languages. Women like Éowyn, the blond we all saw in the film The Two Towers, with Edoras the capital of Rohan in the background, is the crown of evolution. To think that the very crown is now in danger of extinction because of self-hate among whites is too intolerable a thought to contemplate. A few months ago a former U.S. president celebrated that whites will be a minority in his nation. I was extremely dismayed when learning what he said and can only thank the authors of this website, which I have discovered just today…According to Mario Bunge, whom I know personally, Hitler wanted to re-mythologize Europe. Yesterday I ordered through Amazon the revisionist book by Buchanan where he states that Americans should have left the Germans to expand toward the East. I look forward to reading it. Meanwhile, it is worth noting that Johnson informs us that for John Winthrop the previous colonies had failed because they were carnal and irreligious. Winthrop believed that only an enterprise founded on religion had a chance to thrive.
He was right. In 1630 he gathered a float that parted toward what he and his enthusiastic company perceived as an escape from Egypt for the Promised Land. For Johnson it is beyond doubt that the spirit that animated all of these men and women was not economic but an impulse of a religious order. A “City upon a Hill” watched by the world was the myth that galvanized the community. Once on American soil, and in sharp contrast to present-day Americans’ aid after the 2010 Haiti quake, Winthrop was delighted when receiving the news that North American Indians were being decimated as a result of smallpox. It was clear to them that God had accepted their right to occupy the land.
Winthrop’s success resolved a mystery about which Johnson had written ten pages before. Why were the English so reluctant to establish themselves in America even a century after Columbus’ discovery while the relatively more primitive Spanish and the Portuguese had already created vast empires? The answer is patently clear: they lacked a truly galvanizing story that conferred them a definite self-image and consequent self-esteem.
Something similar could be said of the Great Awakening in America’s 1730s. An awakening is indeed what we now need, albeit one based upon a different kind of myth. TOQ is publishing printed, journal articles considering secession from today’s rotten America (see, e.g., here) plus online articles (e.g., here). But a very specific scene in the LOTR film and its music of “a City upon a Hill” in with Éowyn at the top of the capital of Rohan with a Scandinavian violin as sountrack might be enough, for the moment, to make my point.
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
Monday, March 08, 2010
Less than a month ago I still believed that Kevin MacDonald was wrong and Larry Auster right on the Jewish Question, also known as the Jewish Problem (JP). Although I am barely beginning to read on this subject, I would like to say something about a few comments by Auster and an Auster reader of his blog. Trying to distance himself from MacDonald, Auster wrote (my retort appears indented):
1. I’m speaking of an understandable fear, based on history, that leads some Jews to act in an irrational way today. MacDonald is speaking of a socio-biologically determined group strategy of the Jewish people qua the Jewish people to take advantage of gentiles and undermine their culture wherever they find them.
What I have gathered from Eileen’s comments in this blog is that all cohesive ethnic groups, not only Jews, do it (by the way, the Jewish Problem arises from the higher IQ of Jews which translates in that they become dominant in the West).2. I’m speaking of something that would be reformable through reasoned confrontation. MacDonald is speaking of a primal group animus, driving the Jews to destroy Christians.
Ibidem. All cohesive ethnic groups (not only Jews) compete for the same territory.3. It is evident to anyone reading me that I am not feeling or invoking hostility to Jews as Jews. It is evident to anyone reading him that MacDonald feels and seeks to invoke profound hostility against Jews.
Some people who read MacDonald’s first book of the trilogy believed he admired Jews. As to the last book, to point out that there is a basic socio-biological conflict of interest ought not be presented (to my mind) as irrational anti-Semitism. But yes: becoming aware of the JP arises hostility against Jews as Jews.4. I see the Jewish issue as one issue among many others, and far from the most important. MacDonald literally sees the Jews the source of everything that has gone wrong with the West, to a transcendent degree. For him, the fact that gentiles are destroying their own cultures is purely the result of Jews having gotten control of the gentiles’ minds. This makes Jews not only the sole source of everything that is wrong with gentiles, it makes them demonic beings. The whole insanity of Western suicide that is now happening, it’s all because of the Jews. MacDonald’s “objective,” “scientific” argument leads to a picture of the Jews which equals Nazism in its total demonization of the Jews.
“The source of everything that has gone wrong with the West”. In fact, MacDonald has stated both in writing and in interviews that he disagrees with those who blame everything on the Jews. “...it makes them demonic beings.” Nope! That’s not the feeling I got when reading the very long Preface to his most important book, The Culture of Critique.5. The differences between Jews and Muslims must be remembered. Interspersed with periods of persecution and conflict, Jews have functioned harmoniously and productively as a minority in Western societies for over 2,000 years and can do so again. All needed for this to happen is a self-confident and morally sound majority that firmly stands for its own culture without retreating into resentment and hatred in order to do so. Muslims are inherently alien and hostile to the West and cannot function harmoniously as a minority in Western society.
If I accepted Tanstaafl’s interpretation of Auster’s First Law it’s because of what the Jews did to America: opening the gates for mass immigration. This is far more destructive than the Muslims’ 9/11. (Let us quote three more points, but these ones by someone who writes for Auster’s blogsite:)6. Whites’ suicidal embrace of leftism’s Kool-Aid is present in countries, like Ireland and Scandinavia, where Jews are absent or nearly so.
Yes. And that’s why I still keep the term “liberalism” in the masthead of this blog, a catchword that includes both Gentile and Jewish, instead of blaming the whole thing on the “Jews”. Still, the influence of the axiological revolution prompted by the new Judaized America on these European countries has to be acknowledged (wasn’t America the first to do it with the 1965 Immigration Act?).7. Even if one assumes universal Jewish hostility (which is simply untrue), his theory absolves the large numbers of treasonous whites of moral responsibility on grounds of genetic inferiority. Such people, like George W. Bush, bear more moral responsibility for the disaster that has befallen whites. If MacDonald became dictator and deported every single Jew in America to Israel, we’d still have to deal with the likes of Barry Lynn, the Clintons, the Bushes, the Kennedys, etc., etc.
Again: that’s why I am keeping the Austeresque “a new liberal left” in my blog’s masthead.8. As I’ve mentioned before, Israel suffers from the same disease as the rest of the West. If the Muslims were rational strategists (fortunately they aren’t) they’d abandon the idea of “Palestine” altogether, employ the jihad doctrine of taqiyaah (deception), adopt Israeli citizenship, and breed like rabbits on government largesse until they achieved majority status. The egalitarian impulse already entrenched in Israel would pave the road for eventual conquest.
I doubt that Israelis would permit this hypothetical scenario in the real world.[9.] There are other Jews who will always be hostile to/uncomfortable with the gentile majority. My position is that the way to deal with such Jews is to delegitimize them, which in practical terms means not allowing them places of influence in mainstream society. That’s the way it was in America, prior to, say, 1960. Jews with a fixed animus toward America’s majority culture should either be marginalized in minority sub-cultures, or encouraged to move to Israel. That’s been my consistent position. At the same time, I think a large number of Jews will reform if there is a reawakened, civilized white Christian majority saying that they are offended by and will not tolerate the anti-majoritarianism of liberal Jews. No one has ever said this to them, at least since the mid 20th century. If it were said, I think many of them would get into line. At present they are like children without a parent, because the majority culture has abandoned its role and authority, leaving the kids to run the house.
This last comment came from an Auster email to me.